ArticleJCO precision oncology2026
Molecular Testing in Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03981796 (A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Study of Dostarlimab), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Study of Dostarlimab (TSR-042) Plus Carboplatin-paclitaxel Versus Placebo Plus Carboplatin-paclitaxel in Patients With Recurrent or Primary Advanced Endometrial Cancer (RUBY)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe assessed the cost-effectiveness of Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) testing versus no molecular testing to guide initial treatment in stage III/IV primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (pA/rEC) from payer and societal perspectives.
methodsA decision tree for molecular classification followed by a partitioned survival model estimated lifetime costs and outcomes for ProMisE versus no testing. Patients in the no testing arm received carboplatin + paclitaxel (CP), dostarlimab + CP, pembrolizumab + CP, or hormonal therapy (everolimus + letrozole). Patients in the ProMisE arm received the same treatments or bevacizumab + CP. Survival functions were derived from trial results. EQ-5D-5L utility values were from the RUBY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03981796). Costs were sourced from US databases and literature. The base case presented a US third-party payer perspective. A scenario analysis presented a modified societal perspective. Outcomes were total life-years (LYs), total quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ProMisE versus no testing.
resultsFrom a payer perspective, total LYs and total QALYs were 5.36 and 4.08 with ProMisE versus 3.83 and 2.89 with no testing, respectively. Total costs were $233,989 US dollars (USD) with ProMisE versus $155,305 USD with no testing. Incremental LYs and QALYs were 1.53 and 1.19 greater with ProMisE; incremental costs over a lifetime were $78,684 USD greater with ProMisE. Assuming a threshold of $150,000 USD per QALY gained, ProMisE was cost effective with an ICER of $66,321 USD per QALY gained. From a societal perspective, lifetime costs were lower (-$22,973 USD) and QALYs greater with ProMisE versus no testing.
conclusionProMisE testing is cost effective compared with no testing. Given the heterogeneity of molecular subtypes in stage III/IV pA/rEC, molecular testing enables personalized treatment that is both clinically meaningful and of high value from payer and societal perspectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.